Talk:Active Denial System

Lots of changes

Changed this page a whole lot. Let me know what you think. --Twinxor 04:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Torture Device?

"Nonetheless, activist groups protest that the ADS would be a very effective torture device..." Oh, come on. A gun is much more effective. Do they really not want the military to use a weapon because there's a possibility it could be used for torture? That seems a little silly to me. Xinoph 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a weapon. Weapons kill people. A gun is not effective for torture because if you shoot someone enough times with a gun, they die. This is different, as not only is it non-lethal but in reality the only thing it could possibly be used for *is* torture. Torture is, by definition, causing excrutiating pain. That is what this device does. Your argument is flawed. That is all. - Netdroid9

You are quite incorrect, I'm afraid. This is a weapon. All dictionaries I've checked, and Wikipedia's own article on weapons have words to the effect that the tool need not necessarily be fatal. A gun can also be used as a torture device. You can cause nonfatal injuries with a gun - either cause the bullet to graze the victim, or fire elsewhere but ensure that medical support is available to repair the damage, if necessary, before firing again. Both this weapon and a gun can be used for torture. Therefore, your argument is both purely expressed and flawed. Angus Lepper 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Shooting someone to hurt them tends to leave signs, whereas this is designed to leave no trace at all. A device that causes unbearable pain but leaves no lasting damage would be a perfect untraceable torture device. Fysidiko 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This torture thing does not make sense. Why build a multi-million dollar device when you can torture people with a Zippo lighter? GregorB 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I can only assume that the activists would prefer combatants to use conventional automatic rifle fire to disperse/kill attackers than a system that will make them run away? As for the torture aspect, their arguments don't hold water, pardon the pun. Anything, including water, can be used as a method of torture so where do you set the limit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.100.189 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are all missing the point! Splitting hairs over whether this is a weapon or not is silly. The weapon/torture device will be used by police to control anyone or group deemed to be causing a disturbance....that will mean protestors in your own country. I know that non of you protest anything so this is probably why you argue on such a silly level....but this is real and dangerous...you will never feel the effects of this device directly but you will feel the effects all the same indirectly with your civil liberties gone and your children homeless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.90.228 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can use a zippo lighter to torture someone. You can use water, air, earth, just about anything. However, it's illegal. The point we're trying to make is that enforcing or investigating torture done by this device is nearly impossible due to the lack of evidence left behind. Yes, it's a fantastic nonlethal weapon, but it could also be the most gruesome and horrible way to die ever. Imagine being put inside a microwave and being cooked. Possibly much worse than being burned at the stake, which is (needless to say) barbaric. In a perfect world, this device would be used only as a nonlethal deterrent against willfull aggressors. However, this is not a perfect world, and there are VERY sick people on this planet. I would rather stick to rubber bullets and tear gas than be responsible for someone getting microwaved to death. Who knows, maybe people explode like potatoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.51.172 (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Illegal?

Wouldn't this be illegal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture act? Specifically Article 1 (And Article 2, which seems to contradict the 'lawfully sanctioned' part of Article 1). - Netdroid9

Torture is illegal, however devices that could be used to torture are not, at least per Article 1 and Article 2. I would unconditionally condemn any use of ADS as a torture device. Its use, as designed, is not for torture, therefore it would not be illegal under these UN Articles. However, that is just my opinion based on reading the Articles though I'm no legal expert. - Taka2007 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The main controversy that I have heard has been the conditions of field tests, i.e. subjects were asked to remove metal objects, and take off eye glasses before the tests were conducted. Given the likely situation in which such a system would be employed the controversy as I have heard it is that the military will not advise rioters to remove metal from their bodies. Has anyone seen a source for this?L Hamm 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Testing has since been conducted (2005/2006) on volunteers with glasses and other metal objects. No reports of local burning, though I wouldn't rule it out in isolated circumstances. Solution would be to remove the metal object. You don't need to be notified to remove something that might be burning you; that is common sense. -Taka2007 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears that one case of severe burns was reported when the device was set to "the wrong power level" earlier in the article. If the device can be set to a level that will cause permanent damage then is it actually a controversy - the fact that it can be set to do that exists. L Hamm 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Automobiles were not designed to be lethal, yet they kill people every day. Are we going to ban automobiles because they can potenitally be lethal? The alternative to systems like ADS is lethal means. Let's keep things in perspective. -Taka2007 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It has a setting to kill people. Hence, it is not a non-lethal device, as it has inbuilt functionality which can be used to kill people. Your argument is redundant as you base it on the assumption that this device is not non-lethal, when in actual fact it is. The fact that an automobiles is irrelevent to the thread of conversation. - Netdroid9

The system is not designed to kill people. Doing so would be circumventing the design. There are far easier ways to kill someone. If I wanted to kill someone, a gun is far more effective. If I want people (e.g. civilians) to stay back from something without harming them, I'd opt for ADS. Tear gas works too, but it has longer term effects, and is not as effective as ADS. - Taka2007 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because the R&D version has power controls that can be set to harmful levels doesn't mean the deployment version will. -Toptomcat 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The deployable version HAS the same power restrictions. Yes, it is conceivable it could be used for torture, however, there are far cheaper ways of torturing people that also leave no marks. The politics surrounding the ADS are blown way out of proportion.

I've seen several of the test videos of this system in action. There is a timer that automatically disables the microwave energy. Repeated test shots have been taken on the same individuals. There have only been isolated cases of minor burns on some test volunteers. To kill someone, you'd have to immobilze them, and then repeatedly shoot them for an extended period of time. I'm not sure how long, as it has never been tested to do so. It would be speculation based on the 1/64 inch penetration it does. If the cell damage from repeated shots could cause a lethal effect, then yes it could be lethal. Yes it could be used to torture people, and I would unconditionally condemn that. - Taka2007 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Videos show troops ordered to act like rioters, then ordered to run away -- which proves nothing either way. Some of you could web-search "homemade microwave weapons" and then think how acceptable it is to have some creep secretly aiming microwaves at sunbathers, or a political zealot using microwaves to cause repeat injuries in zoo animals. Doctors won't diagnose forms of injury the feds announce impossible. A baseball bat is either lethal or non-lethal depending on how you use it, but it's not invisible. Well trained and supervised law enforcement or military personnel should use overt weapons. Sneak weapons encourage crime (or lying claims of damage, potentially huge propaganda, if no one can prove who did what to whom, and no one knows if attacks have stopped yet). Claiming microwave weapons are harmless would haunt us every single time it prevented prosecution of premeditated crimes here at home. There is no disloyalty in pleading that the term "non-lethal" be officially scrapped before it confuses juries. The main article needs a section on strategies to detect microwave weapons. 172.152.134.246 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Metal

The Wired article stated that the microwaves could not penetrate a thin barrier of metal. This is likely why in some tests, subjects were asked to remove glasses and metal from their person. Specifically they mention tin foil, but there are likely things more see-through than tin foil, or stronger, or more flexible that can do the same thing, no? Obviously the US Army can build full suits against an ADS otherwise they couldn't use it nearly as effectively. But my question is, how difficult would it be for anyone to build an ADS proof getup? Do the waves round corners, like light waves do, or will a shield in front of unprotected body parts help? The example in the Wired article is that if one were to cover ones entire body in tin foil, it wouldn't work if there were any small gaps. Tin foil rips, but would any readily available metallic lined fabrics (or plastics) resist the microwaves? 128.101.70.97 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A Faraday cage, made of metal mesh, will protect you from this device. The rule of thumb for such cages is that the spacing between the wires should be a tenth of the wavelength of the radiation to be stopped; if this device is 95 GHz, then it has a wavelength of 3.16 mm, so a 0.316 mm mesh will stop it (or possibly 0.316 / sqrt(2) = 2.23 mm, not sure). You can readily get that from commercial suppliers - i found a UK website selling it for 28 quid per square metre. It's stronger and more flexible than tinfoil. Plus, a lot more comfortable in hot climates! It's 3 kg per square metre, and you'll want 2-3 square metres of it; heavier than normal clothes, but hardly plate mail (although that would also work ...)! -- Tom Anderson 2007-09-19 2110 +0100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.81.58 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Add "Microwave Weapons" Redirect?

The term "Microwave Weapons" referring specifically to ADS is becoming popularized in the latest media on the subject. ADS would only be one of many possible fits for that term, so perhaps just installing a disambiguation page with links to ADS and masers and "nonlethal force" and such would be the route to take to catch queries on this term. I don't think it merits a full article of its own. (71.233.165.69 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, a disambig page sounds reasonable for that. Twinxor t 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

130 degrees F?

I doubt that this would be very effective in real combat, or even against a determined mob. I've taken baths at a temperature of 130 degrees Farenheit (which is a crazy thing to do, by the way -- don't try it) and it's not really that painful. It's uncomfortable: yes. It's a burning sensation: yes. It feels like being on fire: maybe. But if I were fighting for my country or ideology, it wouldn't be nearly painful enough to stop me. Perhaps my experience is not typical. Or perhaps the temperature reached when this weapon is used is actually higher. Just my two cents.... --N Shar 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this comparison has to do with the method of heating. In the bath, only the outer layer is exposed. This layer is also exposed to a cooler layer underneath. Your pumping blood actually works as a coolant when exposed to hot water. However, in this case every water molecule within the active range (I guess 3 mm or so since that's the wavelength) is going to be heated up to 55 C. Its far quicker and far more effective in terms of heat transfer. -Hellkyte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.170.212.5 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you melt an entire human being?

In the current write up, the phrase "melt an entire human being" is used in the context of the possibility of a hot spot forming on a target of this weapon. Am I the only person who thinks this sounds both wrong and silly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.16.133.184 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

different degrees of heat are more or less painful depending on the method of delivery. So, while 130 degrees of heat may not feel that bad in a bath. It would be pretty painful in a bath of oil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.52.69 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Microwave tank

Isnt this invention exactly the same as featured on the game 'command and conquer generals zero hour'? Shouldnt this be mentioned under a trivia section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueyjoo (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Goodbye effect"

Footnote #1 gives no explanation of the "goodbye effect" (what is this?) that it accompanies. 86.142.240.102 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tin-foil hat, anyone?

I won't put this in the article, because it's just something I thought up, and hence original research. However, I don't think it's likely that I'm the first one to think of this, and if there's a better source, then it should go into the article.

It is well known that electromagnetic radiation is reflected by a conducting surface, such as a sheet of metal. (The thickness required is related to the skin depth, which at 95 GHz is microscopically small for any conductor.) So this million-dollar weapon could be defeated by $0.50 worth of aluminum foil and cardboard fashioned to form a set of corner reflectors that send the microwave ray back onto the person operating the ADS. Somebody with a little time and patience could even fashion himself an entire suit of corner reflectors that could be hidden under normal clothing...

--PeR 09:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was confused by this as well. I work with microwaves pretty often, and this radiation is not that different from that found in a microwave oven (hell the effects are damn near the same, just less extreme). In a microwave all you need is a conductive mesh with openings smallers than the wavelength of the radiation. In this case that would be ~3mm or so. You could easily put a mesh like that on.

I just don't understand how that wouldn't block it. What am I (we) missing?

--Hellkyte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.170.212.5 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some microwave frequenices go straight through faraday cages at the right frequency. I will find my source on it and put it in at a later stage.211.30.132.2 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The point, to me is that there are layers or barriers for protestors/insurgent factions. I think how this weapon would be used is not against a military force as much as control of a general population. The "pain Ray" is a barrier for those who would protest non-violently and slowly moving closer and by their movement forward are threatening to the controlling force. This ray will weed out the more peaceful elements like an invisible chain fence. Crowds of people pushing against a chain fence in hug numbers are bad press. However, once the "pain ray" has weeded out the week protestors, the ones who have taken the time to "suit up" in tin foil will be a significantly lower percentage and much easier to hit with rubber/bullets or capture and throw in jail. There would be plenty of warnings and levels of pain that will weed out the people that lack conviction and leave the real protestors out in the open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.90.228 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "The 'pain Ray' is a barrier for those who would protest non-violently..." Why is it that you are assuming that this couldn't (or wouldn't) be used against those *violently* protesting? This device is labeled as an alternative to deadly force, non-violent protesters would certainly never require a deadly force, therefore why would this system be used against non-violent protesters? Are you suggesting that the government would use this device to avoid the "bad press" of "hug numbers"? Your comments seem to be a (not very) thinly-veiled commentary on the oppression of "non-violent protesters" and not on whether metal mesh or foil could defeat the effectiveness of this system.

It is important to find out if mesh or foil could thwart this system, however that point might be moot in reality. If a person in a crowd shows premeditation and determination enough to defeat the system using foil or mesh then injurious or deadly force might be the only way to stop them. Meaning, the system still worked, it has stopped all those who can be stopped without using injurious or deadly force. Supertheman (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As it is an electromagnetic wave, it will be stopped by a screen of a (good) conductor. Classical theories can be used, such as conductivity and skin depth. Meshes with holes small enough will also be effective. For references, look inte EMC-texts. Mossig (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible ADS CounterMeasures: Space, emergency or thermal type blankets may be better to use for ADS countermeasures than tin foil or mesh. They are durable, very lite and cheap. The reflective material (either gold or silver) can be glued onto thin plywood or cardboard sheets and used as shields to reflect the microwaves. The space blankets can be bought at most outdoor or army surplus stores. Some of these so called space blankets have reinforcing material on one side to increase durability. The ideal countermeasure against the ADS would be a poncho made of this material to reflect the microwaves away from the body. When reversed (shiny side in) the poncho can be used as a countermeasure against airborne infrared surveillance by the police and military. By reflecting the body heat towards the body the infrared signature is reduced. (User talk: ecomcon)

Physics?

Is there some ref. to the statement in the article that teh radiation excites the water moelcules? (It seems to contradict some basic physics, AFAIK.) Isnt the effect more like classical heat? Mossig 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Exciting the water molecules makes themmove- that's what creates the heat. As the heat is being created in you, it hurts.

See the article on microwaves for an explanation. In short, the microwaves are at the right wavelength to cause the water molecules in skin to vibrate, heating the skin. It is actual heat, but a very limited depth and area.98.222.195.230 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Exciting a molecule or atom often refers to putting it into a higher energy state, ie. that the electrons changes orbitals. Not the same as heat. I agree with your second conclusion, that it is ordinary heat generated in the nerve endings. Mossig (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The heat is generated by exiciting to a higher rotational state. It is correct terminology, albeit confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.255.242 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, depending on the frequency, that may not be true either. -168.7.255.242 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lethality

Any new on whether or not this could be used as a lethal weapon if it had enough power? If there are any sources on this, I think we should include it, as it would be important.211.30.132.2 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is lethal, and was designed to be that way from the beginning. Why would our government spend billions developing a weapon that won't kill the enemy? http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C9DA8C22-A71D-4CE2-AC8A-277DAD7E766B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.120.68.39 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

bioeffects

In this field, the Pentagone has recently declassified a ten years old report, you could find it on pdf here:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.228.84 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims of use

Currently, the opening paragraph ends with:

"ADS has also been present at various public events in the United States. It is unclear if the government has sought any authorization to deploy the weapon at home or did so without public input.[5]"

Note [5] is the following link: [1]

Having listened to the NPR story twice, I can find no substantiation in it of the two sentences above. Unless somebody can find a source, I'll remove the two sentences in a day or two. --Dcfleck (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed. --Dcfleck (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Experience

As someone who has been shot by the ADS as a volunteer, along with having spoken with the developers of the system, I would like to make a few comments. I will leave it to others to make changes to the article, as I'm afraid any changes I make will immediately be undone.

First of all, with current testing (I was only shot about a month or so ago), you are not required to remove any metal or electronics from your person. When I was shot I kept on my glasses, ring, and watch, and even left my phone in my pocket with no ill effects from keeping any of them on me when I was shot. Note: I also got shot without the items (to compare) and there was no difference. Oh, and my phone still works perfectly.

The article also mentions that the safeties and settings of ADS can be overridden by the operator, but I don't believe this is actually true. The source cited after that statement doesn't even mention that "fact," so I honestly do not understand why that is mentioned in the article. There is a good reason that the safties cannot be overridden, and many of the sources mention this: The purpose of the system is a non-lethal detterent with the purpose of discerning intent. Many of the shows ADS has been on, as well as my own personal experience, show that the longest most people can stand to be in the path of the beam is on the order of 2-3 seconds, so the standard setting of 4 seconds is more than long enough to discern if someone intends to be a threat to you or not. And according to rules of engagement, that is generally justification to escalate to a different, potentially lethal, weapon.

In regards to the potential to block the beam with metal, I have a few comments. 1st of all, because the diameter of the beam (which is close to the diameter of the large reflector) covers most of your body, any uncovered parts of your body would be affected, so if there were any open spots (like for your eyes), you would still feel the effects, even if they were limited. Additionally, if you were observed wearing such protection, that is (like above) a very obvious signal of intent.

Seeing as I mentioned eyes in the last section, I'll speak to that part of the article as well. The article currently states that long-term exposure can cause damage to sensitive tissues like the eyes. Unfortunately, with the way the beam works and the fact that the effects are not instant, your body's natural reaction to the beam is to close your eyes, completely protecting them. I say completely because your eyelid is much thicker than the 1/64th of an inch the beam penetrates to.

One of my biggest issues with the article as it currently stands is the citation and extensive quoting from the FrontPage source. After reading through the whole article and glancing around the site as a whole, I can't help but feel that this is a very biased source. For example, how can a beam that is only capable-through the laws of physics-of penetrating 1/64th of an inch into your skin be lethal? For that matter, how can it "take out (kill) hundreds of enemies within a few seconds?" (As quoted in the source and the article itself). While I don't doubt that there could be a frequency of directed energy beam that could have that capability, the ADS, with its frequency of 95 GHz, does NOT.

If anyone has any questions, please present them. I can't by any means promise I'll have answers to everything, but at the very least I know what I've written about above. RckmRobot (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)